Re: "menu" versus "menuconfig" -- they're *both* a bad idea

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Carlo Florendo wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   (in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
> > certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
> > some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
> > sub-choice of that feature back in behind my back.)
>
> I agree with this.  However, if another feature actually depends on
> another explicitly unselected feature, there should at least be a
> warning prompt that such is the case.
>
> It probably would be hard though to track all dependencies.

i can't imagine this is a widespread problem in the tree -- i mean, we
keep using CONFIG_EMBEDDED as an example, and we mostly agree that
that's just a bad design, anyway.

but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each
and every "select" directive has the potential to override a decision
you think you might have made elsewhere.

I'm just sayin'.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/